Skip to main content
Glama
andreycretsu

Cursor Talk to Figma MCP

by andreycretsu

join_channel

Connect to a specific Figma channel for communication, enabling Cursor AI to read and modify designs programmatically through natural language commands.

Instructions

Join a specific channel to communicate with Figma

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
channelNoThe name of the channel to join

Implementation Reference

  • MCP tool registration for 'join_channel' including inline handler and schema definition.
    server.tool(
      "join_channel",
      "Join a specific channel to communicate with Figma",
      {
        channel: z.string().describe("The name of the channel to join").default(""),
      },
      async ({ channel }) => {
        try {
          if (!channel) {
            // If no channel provided, ask the user for input
            return {
              content: [
                {
                  type: "text",
                  text: "Please provide a channel name to join:",
                },
              ],
              followUp: {
                tool: "join_channel",
                description: "Join the specified channel",
              },
            };
          }
    
          await joinChannel(channel);
          return {
            content: [
              {
                type: "text",
                text: `Successfully joined channel: ${channel}`,
              },
            ],
          };
        } catch (error) {
          return {
            content: [
              {
                type: "text",
                text: `Error joining channel: ${error instanceof Error ? error.message : String(error)
                  }`,
              },
            ],
          };
        }
      }
    );
  • The main handler function for the 'join_channel' tool. Validates input, calls joinChannel helper, and returns success/error response.
    async ({ channel }) => {
      try {
        if (!channel) {
          // If no channel provided, ask the user for input
          return {
            content: [
              {
                type: "text",
                text: "Please provide a channel name to join:",
              },
            ],
            followUp: {
              tool: "join_channel",
              description: "Join the specified channel",
            },
          };
        }
    
        await joinChannel(channel);
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: "text",
              text: `Successfully joined channel: ${channel}`,
            },
          ],
        };
      } catch (error) {
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: "text",
              text: `Error joining channel: ${error instanceof Error ? error.message : String(error)
                }`,
            },
          ],
        };
      }
    }
  • Zod input schema for the tool, defining the 'channel' parameter.
    {
      channel: z.string().describe("The name of the channel to join").default(""),
    },
  • Helper function that sends the WebSocket 'join' message to the socket server (src/socket.ts) to join the specified channel.
    async function joinChannel(channelName: string): Promise<void> {
      if (!ws || ws.readyState !== WebSocket.OPEN) {
        throw new Error("Not connected to Figma");
      }
    
      try {
        await sendCommandToFigma("join", { channel: channelName });
        currentChannel = channelName;
        logger.info(`Joined channel: ${channelName}`);
      } catch (error) {
        logger.error(`Failed to join channel: ${error instanceof Error ? error.message : String(error)}`);
        throw error;
      }
    }
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the action ('Join') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this requires authentication, if it's idempotent, what happens on success/failure, or any side effects (e.g., notifications). The description is minimal and lacks crucial operational details.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized, with every word earning its place by conveying the core action and goal.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (a potentially interactive tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'join' entails operationally, what the expected outcome is, or any error conditions. For a tool that might involve network communication or state changes, more context is needed to guide effective use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'channel' documented as 'The name of the channel to join'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as channel naming conventions or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Join') and the resource ('a specific channel'), with the purpose being 'to communicate with Figma'. It's specific about what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_document_info' or 'read_my_design', which are read-only operations, whereas this implies an interactive action.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing to be in a Figma workspace), exclusions, or related tools. It's a standalone statement with no context for usage decisions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/andreycretsu/cursor-talk-to-figma-mcp-main'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server